APHC010367202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 18597/2024 Between: 1. VAJRALA VEERANJAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY F.P SHOP DEALER VIDE F.P SHOP NO 0826017, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATIA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 5. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, J PANGULURU MANDAL, J PANGULURU, BAPA Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 18597/2024 VAJRALA VEERANJAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY F.P SHOP DEALER VIDE F.P SHOP NO 0826017, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BAPATLA DISTRICT, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU, BAPATIA DISTRICT. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, J PANGULURU MANDAL, J PANGULURU, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA VAJRALA VEERANJAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY F.P SHOP DEALER VIDE F.P SHOP NO 0826017, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BAPATLA DISTRICT, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL THE TAHSILDAR, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL, THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, J PANGULURU ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 2 VS,J W.P.No.18597 of 2024 pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the Dealership Authorization of the petitioner vide F.P Shop No. 0826017, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District is illegal, arbitrary and against the law, and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to continue the Petitioner as F.P.Shop dealer vide F.P Shop No. 0826017, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer vide F.P Shop No: 0826017, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District by suspending the proceedings in R.C.H/678/2024, dated 09- 08-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 09.09.2024 passed in I. A. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.18597 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y NAGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.No.18597 of 2024 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the Dealership Authorization of the petitioner vide F.P.Shop No.0826017, Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District is illegal, arbitrary and against the law and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer vide F.P. Shop No.0826017, Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.0826017 of Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District under Self Help Group by name Anjali Mahila Mandali (DWACRA) in the year, 2014. Since then, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop without any complaints from any corner. 3. While the matter being so, the 3rd respondent, basing on the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar i.e., the 5th respondent herein,has issued a show cause notice on 03.08.2024, directing the petitioner submit an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why his authorization should not be terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 06.08.2024. In pursuance of the same, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2024 straightaway terminating the petitioner’s authorization without conducting an enquiry. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4 VS,J W.P.No.18597 of 2024 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 09.09.2024, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2024: This application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, vide F.P shop No.0826017, Budawada village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District, by suspending the proceedings in R.C.H/678/2024, dated 09.08.2024. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following allegations are levelled against the petitioner: (i) The name board is not rendering at F.P shop; (ii) The stock-cum-price board is also not rendering the FP shop Premises; (iii) The stocks are kept in narrow room; (iv) The FP shop rooms are not clean and weighing machine also not working properly; (v) Failed to submit the order copy of appointment proceedings issue by appointing authority. He further submitted that the petitioner was supplied with the commodities for the last ten years and suddenly, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to submit the order of appointment proceedings. He further stated that the impugned order itself speaks that temporary appointment of the petitioner was terminated, meaning thereby, there was an order appointing the petitioner as a temporary dealer. The learned Assistant Government Pleader requested time for getting instructions. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to file any piece of document showing appointment of the petitioner and any other evidence showing application for renewal of dealership from time to time. He further submitted that since an appeal would lie against the impugned order, writ petition is not maintainable. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner approached this writ Court. 5 VS,J W.P.No.18597 of 2024 As can be seen from the grounds noted above in terminating the appointment of the petitioner, the main ground is failing to submit the copy of the proceedings appointing the petitioner as a fair price shoр dealer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a temporary dealer and that is how the appointment was terminated. Termination presupposes appointment. Further, supply of commodities for the past 10 years is yet another fact which the authorities themselves know. The other grounds would not justify to take so serious action of terminating the appointment. In the light of the prima facie grounds urged by the petitioner, and in view of the time sought for filing counter, interim stay, as prayed for, is granted till 30.09.2024. 6. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner and stated that as there are complaints against the petitioner that she was not distributing the essential commodities to the card holders properly and not maintaining the fair price shop properly, which leads to the violation of permissions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and as well as the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioner’s authorization has been terminated by issuing show cause notice, calling for explanation from the petitioner and as such, they have followed the procedure as contemplated under the Control Order, 2018 and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 7. However, on a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2024,it can be observed that except referring to the inspection report dated 01.08.2024 and show cause notice dated 03.08.2024, the 3rd respondent even without referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, have straightaway terminated the petitioner’s authorization, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal as against the said order, even 6 VS,J W.P.No.18597 of 2024 without conducting any detailed enquiry on the charges framed as against the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2024 are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 09.08.2024 and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 06.08.2024. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated as against the petitioner has not been finalized and as the petitioner has been continuing as a fair price shop dealer, in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court on 09.09.2024, it is needless to state that the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 22.09.2025 MDP